2006-10-29 01:53:18 · 4 answers · asked by ow do 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It was poor allocation of resources with the nationalizations occurring after WWI2. It slowed economic growth during that time, but you did not have to worry about being laid off. Its a trade-off you loose efficiency of what a less regulated market brings. The government should own certain industries but not the airline, car, steel, communications. When Thacter came in she privatized a lot of industries, and in America a lot deregulation of private industry occurred with Airlines, communications, banking. Its a trade-off because a less regulated economic is more unstable too at times. Yet, countries still nationalized industries to this day even America did it with Airport security. Economic planning is good when your poor country starting out to grow basic industry inefficiencies are good if the result is learning instructure for basic goods and services. Eventfully gotta open up the market to more competition, and less regulation. Most successful economies never played IMF or neoliberalism, Japan and Korea never did.
2006-10-29 01:20:42 · answer #1 · answered by ram456456 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It couldnt have been too effective, about that time, they stopped using the pound note.
2006-10-29 08:55:25 · answer #2 · answered by xenypoo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
terrible, nearly as bad as the planning is now
2006-10-29 08:54:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
sounds like a school/college/uni question to me - need help with your hwk?... me too!
2006-10-29 09:11:10 · answer #4 · answered by tward1989 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋